It's not a cure, but these people claim they've got a superfast reliable test for infection. Dogs!!!
theconversation.com/these-dogs-are-trained-to-sniff-out-the-coronavirus-most-have-a-100-success-rate-143756
It takes 6-8 weeks to retrain a sniffer dog. There must be a few hundred of them in customs and the police.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
It's not a cure, but these people claim they've got a superfast reliable test for infection. Dogs!!!
theconversation.com/these-dogs-are-trained-to-sniff-out-the-coronavirus-most-have-a-100-success-rate-143756
It takes 6-8 weeks to retrain a sniffer dog. There must be a few hundred of them in customs and the police.
The dogs are in on it.
Now that I have joked about it, I am impressed that dogs can sniff out viruses. I haven't googled it yet, but I wonder if they are sniffing out the virus or the body's reaction to it?
Are they sniffing the microchips? (can't help myself with the poor/bad jokes)
I see the thread that asked for no more corona virus threads was well received.
I like the idea that the same sniffer dogs that are already working at the airport can sniff everyone at customs or bagdrop or entry, and bingo, just like that we're all flying again.
That just makes me wonder why dogs (probably all dogs but drug dogs are trained to react a certain way) that can sniff out the faintest thing in such a quick time feel the need to stick their noses right on top of a turd on the foot path and sniff deep for as long as possible.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
I see the thread that asked for no more corona virus threads was well received.
I like the idea that the same sniffer dogs that are already working at the airport can sniff everyone at customs or bagdrop or entry, and bingo, just like that we're all flying again.
Just in case you haven't figured it out, if you don't want anymore corona virus threads, probably the best way you can discourage them is to not participate in them. If you do like them, then go ahead, you are doing well.
Select to expand quotebobajob said..
That just makes me wonder why dogs (probably all dogs but drug dogs are trained to react a certain way) that can sniff out the faintest thing in such a quick time feel the need to stick their noses right on top of a turd on the foot path and sniff deep for as long as possible.
Maybe they're just amateur pathologists. It's a hobby like any other.
Sorry if you didn't want more coronavirus threads. I just thought that it was an interesting idea, not another reason for people to argue about the use of drugs or lockdowns.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Are they sniffing the microchips? (can't help myself with the poor/bad jokes)
They are trained to bark if they detect covid-19, so their bark is worse than their byte.
I'm here all week. Tip your waitresses.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
www.skynews.com.au/details/_6179108952001
Do a google on "Ivermectin covid", it seems this has been known about for months.
The guy here doesn't seem to be a looney, and if what he says is true, we could give it to 10 people with covid, and expect all 10 of them to get better in days. Is this being ignored because medical bureaucrats demand a 6-month trial protocol to convince themselves?
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..japie said..
www.skynews.com.au/details/_6179108952001
Do a google on "Ivermectin covid", it seems this has been known about for months.
The guy here doesn't seem to be a looney, and if what he says is true, we could give it to 10 people with covid, and expect all 10 of them to get better in days. Is this being ignored because medical bureaucrats demand a 6-month trial protocol to convince themselves?
No huge pharmacological.....
Nuff said.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..japie said..
www.skynews.com.au/details/_6179108952001
Do a google on "Ivermectin covid", it seems this has been known about for months.
The guy here doesn't seem to be a looney, and if what he says is true, we could give it to 10 people with covid, and expect all 10 of them to get better in days. Is this being ignored because medical bureaucrats demand a 6-month trial protocol to convince themselves?
It was mentioned early on in the media stories around Covid19 as a 'treatment for scabies', but I never read of the actual drug name mentioned. I know as I have used ivermectin before and it sounded weird at the time that they were suggesting its use.
As with lots of drugs, there must be people out there that use a particular drug for other uses and they try it against Covid19 and have success, but how do you qualify if it really was that drug that resolved it, or something else? That's what the whole point of trials are.
Just as a FYI there are flea/mange treatments out there for your dog that uses a synthetic version of ivermectin. Maybe your dog is going to be free of Covid19 long after we all get it?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
As with lots of drugs, there must be people out there that use a particular drug for other uses and they try it against Covid19 and have success, but how do you qualify if it really was that drug that resolved it, or something else? That's what the whole point of trials are.
Just as a FYI there are flea/mange treatments out there for your dog that uses a synthetic version of ivermectin. Maybe your dog is going to be free of Covid19 long after we all get it?
Yeah, I understand the point of trials, but this guys case sounds compelling, and being a pretty harmless drug that is readily available, why wouldn't you give it to 20 or 50 people and see what happens. If what this guy says about sudden improvement and 100% success rate is true, then you'd get a pretty good indication in a couple of weeks.
If I was to catch COVID, I'd like the chance to try it.
And then there's this one
www.smh.com.au/national/alpacas-provide-new-hope-for-a-covid-19-cure-20200810-p55kcp.html
Which will allow all the doctor's wives round here to say that they aren't just using pets as a tax device.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..FormulaNova said..
As with lots of drugs, there must be people out there that use a particular drug for other uses and they try it against Covid19 and have success, but how do you qualify if it really was that drug that resolved it, or something else? That's what the whole point of trials are.
Just as a FYI there are flea/mange treatments out there for your dog that uses a synthetic version of ivermectin. Maybe your dog is going to be free of Covid19 long after we all get it?
Yeah, I understand the point of trials, but this guys case sounds compelling, and being a pretty harmless drug that is readily available, why wouldn't you give it to 20 or 50 people and see what happens. If what this guy says about sudden improvement and 100% success rate is true, then you'd get a pretty good indication in a couple of weeks.
If I was to catch COVID, I'd like the chance to try it.
I think the problem is that doctors want to make sure that what they prescribe is going to cause no harm. I agree, Ivermectin has a pretty benign list of potential side-effects.
I am not sure I would want to be the doctor making that choice for patients just in case.
Again, trials are the only real way to sort this out, and maybe a small simple one would be enough to see if there is any merit in further trials?
As for 'readily available', it may be in theory, but in practice it is not commonly stocked as far as I can tell. I had to get it ordered in. From what i can tell its really only used for homeless people or people with less than ideal living conditions, so its not as common as you might think.
Select to expand quotebobajob said..
That just makes me wonder why dogs (probably all dogs but drug dogs are trained to react a certain way) that can sniff out the faintest thing in such a quick time feel the need to stick their noses right on top of a turd on the foot path and sniff deep for as long as possible.
You don't read War and Peace with a quick glance.
Select to expand quoteGorgo said..bobajob said..
That just makes me wonder why dogs (probably all dogs but drug dogs are trained to react a certain way) that can sniff out the faintest thing in such a quick time feel the need to stick their noses right on top of a turd on the foot path and sniff deep for as long as possible.
You don't read War and Peace with a quick glance.
I don't think dogs 'see' smells as we do in the good or bad categories. I think they just find them interesting. It must be funny being able to selectively pick up a scent on top of other stronger scents and still try and isolate the one you are interested in.
I am sure stinky rotten chicken smells sweet to a dog, but they would gag if having to smell air fresheners.
Well I don't know about town dogs, but where I grew up in the bush any dog getting a bath would immediately afterwards go and find the stinkiest thing they could to roll in and get rid of the shampoo smell. Roadkill seemed to be first prize, just as it was getting ripe...
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
I don't think dogs 'see' smells as we do in the good or bad categories. I think they just find them interesting. It must be funny being able to selectively pick up a scent on top of other stronger scents and still try and isolate the one you are interested in.
I am sure stinky rotten chicken smells sweet to a dog, but they would gag if having to smell air fresheners.
You should be able to give us a first canid opinion
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..FormulaNova said..
I don't think dogs 'see' smells as we do in the good or bad categories. I think they just find them interesting. It must be funny being able to selectively pick up a scent on top of other stronger scents and still try and isolate the one you are interested in.
I am sure stinky rotten chicken smells sweet to a dog, but they would gag if having to smell air fresheners.
You should be able to give us a first canid opinion
Nah, those dogs are freaks! Not like us at all.
As per Greenpat's comment, my dog used to find something stinky and immediately try and roll in it. I still haven't worked out if they do it because they want to cover up their terrible 'clean' odour, or if they just like it.
I am guessing its an evolution thing to try and mask your own scent by rolling in the scat from your prey.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..japie said..
www.skynews.com.au/details/_6179108952001
Do a google on "Ivermectin covid", it seems this has been known about for months.
The guy here doesn't seem to be a looney, and if what he says is true, we could give it to 10 people with covid, and expect all 10 of them to get better in days. Is this being ignored because medical bureaucrats demand a 6-month trial protocol to convince themselves?
Fascinating to see the narrative machine rumbling into gear with regard to Prof Borody's assertions. Just Googled ivermectin. Stacks of articles crashing down on it.
I agree with you Harrow. Although I wouldn't just like to try it if I fell ill with Covid. I'd demand it.
Bewildering that random medical journalists worldwide have the capacity to question and potentially prohibit the use of an approved medication which is being recommended by a man with a singularly impressive track record and very impressive qualifications.
The ingestion of Ivermectin has long been established as safe. If Borody is correct, (it is difficult to understand why a man of his standing would put his reputation at risk and he certainly does not stand to profit) what is it that is driving people to prevent patients from being prescribed a potentially life saving medicine?
Borody's assertion that pharmaceutical companies run the risk of losing potential profit only goes part of the way in explanation.
Select to expand quoteGorgo said..bobajob said..
That just makes me wonder why dogs (probably all dogs but drug dogs are trained to react a certain way) that can sniff out the faintest thing in such a quick time feel the need to stick their noses right on top of a turd on the foot path and sniff deep for as long as possible.
You don't read War and Peace with a quick glance.
Classic!
But you can write it with a quick grunt then.
Select to expand quotejapie said..Harrow said..japie said..
www.skynews.com.au/details/_6179108952001
Do a google on "Ivermectin covid", it seems this has been known about for months.
The guy here doesn't seem to be a looney, and if what he says is true, we could give it to 10 people with covid, and expect all 10 of them to get better in days. Is this being ignored because medical bureaucrats demand a 6-month trial protocol to convince themselves?
Fascinating to see the narrative machine rumbling into gear with regard to Prof Borody's assertions. Just Googled ivermectin. Stacks of articles crashing down on it.
I agree with you Harrow. Although I wouldn't just like to try it if I fell ill with Covid. I'd demand it.
Bewildering that random medical journalists worldwide have the capacity to question and potentially prohibit the use of an approved medication which is being recommended by a man with a singularly impressive track record and very impressive qualifications.
The ingestion of Ivermectin has long been established as safe. If Borody is correct, (it is difficult to understand why a man of his standing would put his reputation at risk and he certainly does not stand to profit) what is it that is driving people to prevent patients from being prescribed a potentially life saving medicine?
Borody's assertion that pharmaceutical companies run the risk of losing potential profit only goes part of the way in explanation.
I wonder if Steve Jobs decided that the pharmaceutical companies were just out to poison him when he decided to cure cancer his own way?
You would risk Ivermectin just based on a google search? That's a pretty low standard, so I would hope that you get an expert opinion from a few doctors to agree with you first. Don't worry though, doctors are like the rest of us and their opinions will vary.
No FN I would not "risk Ivermectin based on a Google search".
I would use it at the recommendation of Professor Brody, Medical Director Professor , MB, BS, BSc(Med), MD, PhD, DSc, FRACP,FACP,FACG, AGAF, Bgungho. I would not not use it at the recommendation of some obscure medical journalist on the internet.
I thought I had made that point quite clearly and concisely. Obviously not!
Select to expand quotejapie said..Harrow said..japie said..
www.skynews.com.au/details/_6179108952001
Do a google on "Ivermectin covid", it seems this has been known about for months.
The guy here doesn't seem to be a looney, and if what he says is true, we could give it to 10 people with covid, and expect all 10 of them to get better in days. Is this being ignored because medical bureaucrats demand a 6-month trial protocol to convince themselves?
Fascinating to see the narrative machine rumbling into gear with regard to Prof Borody's assertions. Just Googled ivermectin. Stacks of articles crashing down on it.
I agree with you Harrow. Although I wouldn't just like to try it if I fell ill with Covid. I'd demand it.
Bewildering that random medical journalists worldwide have the capacity to question and potentially prohibit the use of an approved medication which is being recommended by a man with a singularly impressive track record and very impressive qualifications.
The ingestion of Ivermectin has long been established as safe. If Borody is correct, (it is difficult to understand why a man of his standing would put his reputation at risk and he certainly does not stand to profit) what is it that is driving people to prevent patients from being prescribed a potentially life saving medicine?
Borody's assertion that pharmaceutical companies run the risk of losing potential profit only goes part of the way in explanation.
Here we are, it's just like HW never shut up shop.
I read a bit about Ivermectin too. What I found said that in vitro use was effective with doses in the microgram/ml range, but normal therapeutic doses are 100 times less 20-80ng/ml
www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z
"As noted, the activity of ivermectin in cell culture has not reproduced in mouse infection models against many of the viruses and has not been clinically proven either, in spite of ivermectin being available globally. This is likely related to the pharmacokinetics and therapeutic safety window for ivermectin. The blood levels of ivermectin at safe therapeutic doses are in the 20-80?ng/ml range [44], while the activity against SARS-CoV2 in cell culture is in the microgram range. Ivermectin is administered orally or topically."
By coincidence, I got treated by Tom Borody many years ago for a gut problem. He didn't bother with testing any stool samples for pathogens before going for endoscopy. He trimmed out some polyps, he said, but I was bleeding a couple of days later so I had to go back to once again lie on the table while he cauterised the wounds he left the first time in.
Good to see he still has a gung ho attitude.
NZ was patting itself on the back for 3 and a half months of no coronavirus cases... Now there are four.
So.... Where did it come from?
Visitors have to spend two weeks in quarantine, there were no new cases, or assumedly hospitalizations or deaths...
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
NZ was patting itself on the back for 3 and a half months of no coronavirus cases... Now there are four.
So.... Where did the come from?
Visitors have to spend two weeks in quarantine, there were no new cases, or assumedly hospitalizations or deaths...
I ask myself the same question when I get contamination in my mushroom spawn bags. Just suddenly appears. I reckon that there is a whole heap we don't know about the microscopic world.
Makes a bit of a monkey of their quarantine. Fiji were contemplating opening tourism up to Kiwis. May have to reconsider now.
Select to expand quotejapie said..Kamikuza said..
NZ was patting itself on the back for 3 and a half months of no coronavirus cases... Now there are four.
So.... Where did the come from?
Visitors have to spend two weeks in quarantine, there were no new cases, or assumedly hospitalizations or deaths...
I ask myself the same question when I get contamination in my mushroom spawn bags. Just suddenly appears. I reckon that there is a whole heap we don't know about the microscopic world.
Makes a bit of a monkey of their quarantine. Fiji were contemplating opening tourism up to Kiwis. May have to reconsider now.
So if it's out there lurking about "in the wild" not killing people... Then the "quarantine" (you dont quarantine healthy people) is starting to look like an expensive over reaction.
Meanwhile in Sweden....
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..japie said..Kamikuza said..
NZ was patting itself on the back for 3 and a half months of no coronavirus cases... Now there are four.
So.... Where did the come from?
Visitors have to spend two weeks in quarantine, there were no new cases, or assumedly hospitalizations or deaths...
I ask myself the same question when I get contamination in my mushroom spawn bags. Just suddenly appears. I reckon that there is a whole heap we don't know about the microscopic world.
Makes a bit of a monkey of their quarantine. Fiji were contemplating opening tourism up to Kiwis. May have to reconsider now.
So if it's out there lurking about "in the wild" not killing people... Then the "quarantine" (you dont quarantine healthy people) is starting to look like an expensive over reaction.
Meanwhile in Sweden....
Is it a virus that is lurking or is the border a bit more porous than people think?
I suspect that VNs recent cases are from people getting across the border from China.
Meanwhile in Sweden people are still not sure what is going to happen.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
No FN I would not "risk Ivermectin based on a Google search".
I would use it at the recommendation of Professor Brody, Medical Director Professor , MB, BS, BSc(Med), MD, PhD, DSc, FRACP,FACP,FACG, AGAF, Bgungho. I would not not use it at the recommendation of some obscure medical journalist on the internet.
I thought I had made that point quite clearly and concisely. Obviously not!
Just because you made your point 'clearly and concisely' does not mean its right. Sorry, I mean to say that even with one person's opinion, granted he is a doctor, that it does not necessarily mean its a good treatment.
This is entirely separate to my own viewpoint that this particular drug is probably very safe.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Kamikuza said..japie said..Kamikuza said..
NZ was patting itself on the back for 3 and a half months of no coronavirus cases... Now there are four.
So.... Where did the come from?
Visitors have to spend two weeks in quarantine, there were no new cases, or assumedly hospitalizations or deaths...
I ask myself the same question when I get contamination in my mushroom spawn bags. Just suddenly appears. I reckon that there is a whole heap we don't know about the microscopic world.
Makes a bit of a monkey of their quarantine. Fiji were contemplating opening tourism up to Kiwis. May have to reconsider now.
So if it's out there lurking about "in the wild" not killing people... Then the "quarantine" (you dont quarantine healthy people) is starting to look like an expensive over reaction.
Meanwhile in Sweden....
Is it a virus that is lurking or is the border a bit more porous than people think?
I suspect that VNs recent cases are from people getting across the border from China.
Meanwhile in Sweden people are still not sure what is going to happen.
If the border is more porous, why are there so few cases and therefore hospitalizations? Supposed to be very contagious and deadly remember...
Swedish health guy said the deaths they had are what they'd expect in a bad flu season.
(And I discovered the other day that 2017/18 flu season has hospitals in the US doing triage in the carparks because of capacity issues...)
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..Kamikuza said..japie said..Kamikuza said..
NZ was patting itself on the back for 3 and a half months of no coronavirus cases... Now there are four.
So.... Where did the come from?
Visitors have to spend two weeks in quarantine, there were no new cases, or assumedly hospitalizations or deaths...
I ask myself the same question when I get contamination in my mushroom spawn bags. Just suddenly appears. I reckon that there is a whole heap we don't know about the microscopic world.
Makes a bit of a monkey of their quarantine. Fiji were contemplating opening tourism up to Kiwis. May have to reconsider now.
So if it's out there lurking about "in the wild" not killing people... Then the "quarantine" (you dont quarantine healthy people) is starting to look like an expensive over reaction.
Meanwhile in Sweden....
Is it a virus that is lurking or is the border a bit more porous than people think?
I suspect that VNs recent cases are from people getting across the border from China.
Meanwhile in Sweden people are still not sure what is going to happen.
If the border is more porous, why are there so few cases and therefore hospitalizations? Supposed to be very contagious and deadly remember...
Swedish health guy said the deaths they had are what they'd expect in a bad flu season.
(And I discovered the other day that 2017/18 flu season has hospitals in the US doing triage in the carparks because of capacity issues...)
I don't know, but I do acknowledge that its quite possible for many of us to have it and not know it because we have no or minimal symptoms. I think its quite possible that an entire family could have it and pass it between each othe and not really notice it, potentially for months, and then someone else catches it from them and they are going to react badly to it.
Lets not stray into Sweden's ideas.
I am just addressing the ability for it to pop up suddenly with seemingly no cause.
I can see both possibilities that it could be essentially dormant in a group as they are asymptomatic, or it could be an outside carrier.
It wouldn't be the first time someone has entered a country illegally, as drugs somehow make it into countries.
